that the High Priest was to all the Levites in the world Cyprian's Reasons brought from the High Priest have much more Sense in them than these of our Author For he pleadeth no more from that Topick but that as the High Priest was to be obyed and not resisted so is the Bishop As the High Priest was reverenced even by Christ so is the Bishop we say the same that a Bishop acting in his Sphere with his Consistory or Presbytery should be obeyed and respected and we count it the same sort of Sin in Schismaticks who rebel against this Church Authority with Kora's Rebellion against Aaron but it is utterly inconsequential to infer Church Monarchy from Aaron's Power I wish he had brought any thing that might look like proof of this consequence He saith p. 34. that the Christian Hierarchie was copied from that of the Jews and he bringeth Arguments for it such as they are one is from the Names Priest Priesthood Altar Sacrafice c. which he calleth a pregnant Argument I cannot but still observe how much the Papists owe him not only for their Pope but for their unbloody Sacrifice what must we have all that of the Old Testament whereof we retain the Names If so we must have a new Gospel This Argument is easily delivered of its Pregnancy by denying the Consequence His other Argument is from an Ep. of Clement of Rome who lived in the Apostles times wherein he exhorteth to Order and every ones keeping his Station and then reckoneth up several Subordinations under the Old Testament A. Clement useth the Old Testament hierarchy as a simile to illustrate New Testament Subordination of Officers in the Church ergo we must have the same Officers and they must have the same Power that these had non sequitur Neither was such a Consequence intended by Clement For a second Answer our Author may know that that and others of the Epistles that go under Clement's name are rejected as none of his by Learned Men and on solid Grounds § 35. He hath a long Discourse beginning p. 34. at the end to shew that my Definition of a Bishop is consistent with none of the three Principles last mentioned which were current in the Cyprianick Age much less with all three together I have already shewed how far these Principles were held in that Age and how our Notion of a Bishop agreeth with them all What seemeth to be further Argumentative in this Harangue I shall consider He saith the Bishops being the Principle of Vnity doth not consist with his being a single Presbyter where there were fourty six Presbyters as at Rome there would rather be fourty six Principles of Divisions and make the Church a Monster with fourty six Heads Answ 1. I retort this Argument In the first Council of Nice for Example where were three hundred Bishops what was the Principle of Unity or were they three hundred Principles of Division And a Church Meeting or a Church Representative that was so Monstrous as to have three hundred Heads What he will answer in the one case I will answer in the other And indeed this Argument destroyeth the Parity of Bishops which he pleadeth for as well as of Presbyters and its Native Conclusion is we must either have the Papacy over the Church or Anarchy in it A. 2. Where there are many such Presbyters as our Author pleadeth for we say the Bishop was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not a single Presbyter A. 3. In a particular Flock where are many Ruling but not Teaching Presbyters the Bishop or Minister is such a Principle of Vnity as I have above owned and where there are more Bishops in one Church the Principle of Unity is their Teaching the same Doctrine as is above explained He next alledgeth that a Moderator cannot be the Principle of Vnity in a Presbytery seing as such he is neither Pastor Governour nor Christian but may be a Heathen A. This wild Notion that a Heathen may be Moderator in a Presbytery I have fully refuted § 8. To the first part of his Argument I say that not the Moderator alone but with the Presbytery is the Principle of Vnity while they all Teach the same Truths and adhere to the one Rule of our Faith and Practice the Word of God any other Bond or Cement by which Men can be United which lyeth in the Authority of a Man rather than in the true Doctrine is an Antichristian Fancy and tendeth to enslave the Conscience to the Will of Man We know no such Uniting Head as he telleth of but Christ Ephes 4. 15 16. Neither did ever Cyprian dream of such a Head of the Church Next he will make our Notion of a Bishop inconsistent with his other Principls the Bishop's Supremacy and Independency I have already shewed that the Church in Cyprian's Time knew no such Supremacy nor Independency but held and Practised a Subordination not of many to one but of every one to the Collective Body and of every lesser Body to the greater of which it was a part I see no Reason nor Scripture Ground for Independency whether of single Pastors and Congregations or of Presbyteries or of Bishops and their Provincial Synods His third Principle the Hierarchy under the Gospel being the same with that under the Old Testament I have refuted as a groundless Fancy and therefore am under no Obligation to shew the Consistency of our Parity with it § 36. From p. 37. he layeth down Principles that would afford stronger and more pertinent Arguments than any we have yet met with if he can but sufficiently establish these Principles He mentioneth three viz. 1. The Bishop's sole Power in many Acts of Government and Discipline 2. His Negative in all 3. That all Presbyters were subject to his Authority and Jurisdiction If all this be true our Cause is lost but we are not afraid to try it with him through his help whose Cause we plead Before I engage in this Debate with him I desire the Reader will reflect on what I observed § 10. that if we can bring Testimonies to prove a Parity of Power among Presbyters and that Domination over them by one was condemned or disowned in Cyprian's Time his bringing Testimonies to the contrary will not be found Concludent for Contradictory Assertions derogate from the Authority of the Asserter or seeming Contradictions must be reconciled by a fair Exposition or such Testimonies will prove that the Practice and Principles of the Churches of that Age were not Uniform any of which would weaken his Cause I shall not here repeat the Citations that are full to this purpose which I have on diverse Occasions mentioned Nor need I confine my self to Cyprian's Age alone seing our Author pretendeth to no less Antiquity for his Way than from the Apostles down ward yea all the Ages of the Church and all the Churches of every Age and we acknowledge that after the third Century Church-Government was
p. 22. That the Bishops Deed is the Churches Act. p. 24. That Episcopacy is of Divine Institution p. 26. That he is subordinate to none p. 27 28 35. That the Bishop is a supream Ecclesiastical Magistrat p. 43. And Majesty is ascribed to him Ibid. he is called a Soveraign and Peerless Governour p. 65. Supream and unaccountable Power is ascribed to him p. 67. These and many more such Assertions are the Stars by which his Treatises is bespangled And each of them might afford matter for a long Discourse to one who hath nothing else to do A fourth Remark is that through the whole course of his Argumentations he useth such confidence and these Pretences to conclusive and irrefragable evidence as may fright an unintelligent or unwarrie Reader while the Strength of his Ratiocinations is no way proportionable but apparent to be built on Words rather than Matter Every one knoweth that the Signification of several Words used about Ecclesiastical Things in Cyprian's time was far different from what is our modern Dialect The truth of this will I hope be more fully manifest in our considering his particular Arguments § 5. My Assertion against which his Book is levelled he seemeth to wonder at as strangely rash and a putting our being or not being Schismaticks on a desperate Issue The Assertion is a Bishop in Cyprian's time was not a Diocesan with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination If he prove that we shall give Cyprian and him leave to call us Schismaticks A Bishop then was the Pastour of a Flock or the Moderator of a Presbyterie If he can prove that we separate from our Pastours or from the Presbytery with their Moderator under whose Inspection we ought to be let him call us what he will But we disown the Bishops in Scotland from being our Bishops we can neither own their Episcopal Authority nor any pastoral Relation they have to us He seemeth p. 1. to divide his Book into two parts First to take to Task what I had said to wit the words above set down 2. to add perchance something concerning our main Argument The first part he hath largely insisted on with what Strength or Success I am now to examine Of the 2 I find nothing but that p. 94. he hath fairly waved it But with confidence that he could accomplish it and leaving to the person to whom he directeth this long Letter to command him to prosecute what is left undone The Import of which is that it is much more his Inclination to write ad hominem against a particular person than ad rem for that which he taketh to be the truth of God § 6. His first work is to expose the above-mentioned Passage in my Book as yielding a large Field if one had a mind to catch at Words and that it were easie to insist on such escapes if one had a mind for it His first Remark is Suppose the word Diocess was not in use in St. Cyprian's time as applyed to a Bishops District doth it follow that the thing now signified by it was not then in use Answ Pray Sir who made that Consequence the Words cited catch at them as much as you will import no such Consequence and design no more but that which we call now a Diocesan Bishop with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination was not in that Age. His next Remark is in this Question What could move him the Author of the Passage now under Debate to insinuate that we assign the sole power of Jurisdiction and Ordination to our Diocesan Bishop Answ It is a greater wonder what should move this Author to except against our thinking that they assign such Power to their Bishop seing himself ascribeth all that Power to the Cyprianick-Bishop and affirmeth him to be of Divine Institution as hath been already observed Hath he not said that the Bishops Power is Monarchial pag. 23 32. and expresly pag. 38. near the end he saith the Bishop had the sole Power of Ordination and saith it hath been frequently and fully proved by learned men that he need not insist on it and pag. 39. telleth us of Cyprian's Ordaining without asking the consent of the Clergy or People and pleading for this as the Right of all Bishops If he do not ascribe this sole Power to his Scots-Bishops then ex tuo ore they are not the Bishops that Christ instituted Nor these of the Cyprianick-Age nor these for whom the learned men that he speaketh of hath pleaded neither can I guess what kind of Animals he will make them they must be a species of Bishops that never man pleaded for but himself I suppose his Lords the Bishops will give him small thanks thus for pleading their Cause What I have now observed sheweth his Questions to be impertinent viz. When did our Bishops claim that Power and when was it ascribed to them by this Constitution When did they exercise it When was it thought necessary for raising a Bishop to all the due Elevations of the Episcopal Authority I give this general Answer to all these Questions our Scots Bishops look on themselves and are lookt on by their Underlings and by this Author as Scripture-Bishops or at least as Primitive-Bishops and the Bishops that the learned men of this and the preceeding Ages have pleaded for but our Author saith these had the Power we now speak of and therefore he must say that that Power was given them by the Institution that they do claim it and ought to claim it that it is necessary for their due Elevation If they shun to exercise it at least openly by not laying on of Hands without Presbyters it is because they know that practice cannot take nor be born with in a Nation where Parity hath been so much known and generally liked I always understood that the main thing debated between us and the Prelatists was about the sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination and I am not alone in this the Synod of London Vindication of Presbyterial Government pag. 24. proposeth the Controversie in the same Words So doth also Smectymnus § 8 9. and I think he will not find many if any one of either side who handleth this Controversie without respect to this Power To his Question When was it ascribed to them by the Constitution I Answer it was done with respect â—o Ordination anno 1635 in the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical chap. 2. § 3. where the Examination of the Candidate and consequently the Power of determining who shal be ordained is laid on the Bishop and he is allowed to perform this Examination by himself or his Chaplain And for Jurisdiction a person ordained to a Charge may not Preach unless he be also licensed by the Bishop ibid. chap. 7. § 5 Nor may he refute Error preached by another unless he first ask and obtain leave of the Bishop ibid. § 7. Yea a Presbyter may not go a Journey for some time without the Bishops leave
Error It is a vast mistake that he saith that Cyprian Ep. 33. pleadeth for the divine Right of Episcopacy in that Ep. which is mihi 27 he pleadeth for the Divine Authority of the Church and her Bishops that is Pastours not for a Divine Warrant for the Praelation of some of them above others nothing can be more evident than the concurrent Testimonies of Antiquity against this Fancy Scripture and the most Antient of the Fathers speak of Bishops and Presbyters indistinctly when the Distinction began to be taken notice of Jerome saith that it was brought in by the Presbyters themselves Ep. ad Evagr. as also on Tit. and Aug. Ep. 10. referreth to Ecclesiae usus Yea Concil Nic. 1. Can. 6. maketh the Distinction of Bishops as Metropolitans c. To be mos antiquus All that followeth § 37 37 36. doth also confute this Opinion But this I insist not on because our Author hath put off the proof of that Divine Institution of Episcopacy to his next Essay p. 94. His sixth and last Proposition is that the Principle of the Bishops being the Center of Vnity is most reasonable and accountable in it self We may now expect some Herculean Argument and the highest Effort of his Skill And I am willing that the whole Controversie be hanged on this Pin. All that he bringeth for Argument is every particular Church is an Organical political Body and there can be no Organical Body without a Principle of Vnity on which all the Members must hang and from which being separated they must cease to be Members and who so fit for being Principle of Vnity to a Church as he who is Pastour Ruler Governour Captain Head Judge Christs Vicar c. Not his Conclusion only but an Assumption is understood viz. the Bishop is all this ergo he is the Center of Vnity and his quod erat demonstrandum followeth a little after it is scarce possible to prove any thing of this nature more demonstratively One might make sport with this Argument which is introduced and backed with such Parade But I am in earnest in this Debate There are here no less than three Premisses expressed and a fourth necessarily understood before we can reach the Conclusion which every Logician will condemn and when we are at last through all these Stages arived at the Conclusion it is above distinguished and his Argument can reach no more than is by us confessed Besides this it is hard to shew how these his Premisses hang together or what Connection they have Further that the principle of Vnity in a political Body is one person and cannot be a Society the Consistory or the Presbytery in the Church will hardly be proved by this Argument there can be no Unity in a Common-wealth but only in Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy in a Nation are here not only made unlawful but impossible that the Bishop is fittest to be the Principle of Unity in the Church is gratis dictum Yea it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding of the metaphorical Appellations that our Author giveth him from some of the Antients Yea if a Society cannot be the Center of Unity in a particular Church who shall be the Center of Unity among Bishops we must surely have the Pope for this use which is indeed the native conclusion of our Author's Argument that he braggeth so much of But this will afterward occurre § 33. He cometh now p. 27. to another Argument a Bishop in Cyprian's age was supreme in his Church immediatly subject to Christ had no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth the Church was one but divided into many Precincts each had its Bishop who was their Supreme I am no further concerned in what he saith on this head but what he bringeth for the Bishops Supremacy Wherefore I insist not on his first Proposition concerning the Equality of Bishops I only observe that he is for Parity in the Church and if it be found among Bishops I know no Scripture nor Reason that condemneth it among Presbyters To the same purpose is his second Preposition and his Third all which are levelled against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whose cause I do not intend to plead Wherefore I come to examine his 4th Proposition p. 31. by the Principles of these times every Bishop was Christs Vicar within his own District So say I is every Minister of the Gospel understanding by Vicar one who deriveth his Power from Christ and to him must give account of it He saith further that a Bishop had a Primacy in his own Church If he mean that he was primus Presbyter I denyed it not if that he had the sole Power in his own person or that the Presbyters had not a coordinate power with him in the Government of the Church I deny it Neither is it proved by Cyprian's words which he citeth Cathedram sibi constituere primatum assumere which I cannot find by what Directions he giveth and therefore cannot tell what might be further said for vindicating them The next Expression admiteth of the same Answer viz. that he managed the Ballance of Government it is not said that he did this by himself Our Moderator manageth the Ballance of Government but with the Presbytery The sublime Sacerdotii fastigum signifieth no more than primus Presbyter The Antients use as big words for as low things neither do I know any higher Degree in those days If my Antagonist will prove it he must use other Topicks than words that may admit various significations the same I say of the Expressions that follow the vigor Episcopatus the sublimis divina potestas gubernandae Ecclesiae This last may agree to the meanest Member of a Presbytery Are not Presbyters called by Cyprian such as are divino sacerdotio honorati and gloriosi sacerdotes as himself citeth p. 7. To what purpose he citeth Jerome for the Parity of Bishops and saith that I will not reject his Testimony I understand not I shall neither oppose him nor Jerome in that Principle § 34. He bringeth another Argument p. 32. from the High Priest among the Jews and saith that a Bishop was the same to Christians that he was to the Jews I see the learned Author is very unhappy in stumbling upon popish Arguments and he can say litle for his Bishop but what they say for their Pope And it is evident that the Papists from this Medium argue with much more shew of Reason For the High Priest had universal supream Authority over the universal Church that then was The Papists infer the Pope's universal Head-ship tho' I am far from thinking this Argument concludent for them yet what shew of Confequence can it have for a Bishops Power in his Diocess Or with what Face can this Author say that a Bishop is the same to Presbyters and Deacons that he was to the Levites unless he say that a Bishop was the same to all the Presbyters and Deacons in the World
audita praeceperunt eos Praepositi sic esse donec Episcopus constituatur And de Lapsis § 4. Praepositos superbo tumore contemnere it is spoken of all the Rulers of the Church For a further Refutation of this his Principle it may be observed that this Confirmation of which Cyprian here speaketh is not that which in our days goeth under that Name but that used in the Apostolick Church the Effect of which was the giving of the Holy Ghost as is clear from his citing Act. 8. 14 c for the Pattern of what they did and their Warrant for it Now that Imposition of Hands was not given to all the Baptized but only to such as were ad ministerium ordinandi saith Lightfoot it was not ad sanctificationem sed ad dona extraordinaria saith the same Author Piscator Beza Grotius do also so expound this place wherefore it proveth nothing except our Author can tell us what Cyprian meant by it which I can not seing the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost were then ceased for any thing that we know His next Citation out of Firmilian destroyeth what it is brought for for he ascribeth to Bishops the Power of Baptism Confirmation Ordination his Word is they possess this Power I hope he will not say that Presbyters had no Power in Baptism wherefore by Bishops here Firmilian must mean the Pastors of the Church all of whom were frequently called Bishops at that time yea himself confesseth that these spoken of were the majores natu whom he most absurdly pleadeth to be Bishops as distinct from preaching Presbyters Of as little weight is what Cornelius saith of Novatianus Eusebius maketh Cornelius say this of Novatus chap. 42. that he was not confirmed by the Bishop for in that place Cornelius questioned not only the Confirmation of Novatus but his Baptism and that he speaketh not of the ordinary Confirmation but of that which belonged to Priests is clear for he saith how then came he by the Holy Ghost and he is there pleading his incapacity to be a Bishop on that account But of this too much for it doth not hurt our Cause if it be granted that Bishops then were so far distinguished from other Presbyters that they usurped a Power which our Lord had not given to them nor any man else at that time what ever he had before done to them whom he immediatly sent and extraordinarly endowed § 40. The second Act of Power that he ascribeth to the Cyprianick Bishop alone is He had the sole Power of Ordination and that of whatsoever Clergy-men within his District Ordinations could not be performed without him but he could perform them regularly without the concurrence of any other Church-Officer And he saith this hath so frequently and fully been proved by learned men that he need insist little on it All which we deny neither do I find any Argument here brought by him nor have I found in the Writings of his learned men and I may without vanity say I have seen the strongest of them which might be a rational ground of Conviction Before I examine his Proofs for this Assertion I shall prove the Antithesis That Presbyters did in that age and before joyn in the Ordination of Presbyters And first it is evident from Jerom's words so much insisted upon by our Episcopal Brethren Alexandriae a Marco evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Espiscopos Presbyteri semperunum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant Whence it may fairly be deduced that till An. Christi 246 all the Power or Authority that the Bishop had was given him by the Presbyters they elected him nor had he any other Ordination or Communication of Power but what he had from them in the Opinion of Jerome If then the Presbyters made a Bishop it could not be he alone but the Bishop with them and as one of them who made Presbyters 2. Hilarius who lived in the midle of the fourth Century in Eph. 4. hath these words apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignaverunt si praesens non fuit Episcopus Whether ye interpret Consignaverunt of Confirmation as some or Consecration of Church-Officers as others it cometh to the same Conclusion seing our Author and his Complices reserve both these Powers to the Bishop and it is probable they were not divided That they did it absente Episcopo doth imply that they had that Authority for without it they could not have done it at all 3. Novatus a Presbyter in Carthage while Cyprian was Bishop Ordained Felicissimus This Ordination tho' no doubt it was irregular being done without the Moderator and the Presbytery yet it was not lookt on as null but Novatus was after that owned by Cyprian and Felicissimus continued to be a Deacon To this our Author answereth p. 42. that not Novatus but neighbouring Bishops by the procurement of Novatus did it But Cyprian's words are plain Felicissimum diaconum sua factione constituit That this Deacon was ordained by Bishops is gratis dictum I have also elsewhere proved that in Scotland there were Presbyters ruling the Church long before they had Bishops which could not be if none but Bishops could Ordain them § 41. Cyprian Ep. mihi 33. in ordinationibus clericis solemus vos ante consulere ut mores merita singulorum communi consilio ponderarem c. In that Ep. he telleth the Church what was his usual practice and we have cause to think that he lookt on it as his Duty not to Ordain without the Presbyters Commune consilium here can import no less than Deliberation and Authoritative Decision for it was common to him and them In the following part of the Epistle he excuseth his Ordaining Anrelius a Lector without them from the evidence of a Divine Call and the present Distress and Scattering of the Church might excuse this necessary diverting from the common Road yet he telleth them he did not this by himself but hunc igitur fratres dilectissimi à me à collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis quod vos scio libenter amplecti optare tales in Ecclesia nostra quem plurimos ordinari He maketh the like Excuse Ep. 24. for his Ordaining Saturus a Lector and Optatus a Sub-deacon only here he had before hand the common consent but his Circumstances being in his Retirement did not suffer this to be done in and with the Presbytery but that he did it not alone we may gather from the former instance This doth sufficiently shew that Ordinations were not performed without the Determination of the Presbytery But it is also manifest that in the solemnizing of them by imposition of Hands the Presbyters had their Share with the Bishop Cypr Ep. 10. § 2. There is mention of impositio manum Episcopi cleri and that two several times If it be said that this Imposition of Hands was for absolving Penitents the consequence is good
against Felicissimus and Augendus which they executed against them and some others If this Discourse prove such a Power of Delegation it will also prove such a Power in one Bishop over another which our Author will not allow seing he asserteth p. 27 28 35. that every Bishop is supreme and hath no Ecclesiastical Superior on Earth 2. Sending a Messenger to do for us what we are restrained from doing is not always an Act of Authority one Friend may send another if he yield to it as well as a Master may send his Servant 3. That which hath most Weight in our main Cause tho' it be impertinent to the present purpose is that these Persons were to Excommunicat Felicissimus c. To which I Answer that this Excommunication might be Determined by the Presbytery and it was Cyprian's part as Moderator to intimate it for which he substituteth the Persons named Here is no sole Power of Excommunication This is Countenanced by Cyprian's own words in that Ep. § 2. that Felicissimus had despised both him and the Presbytery Nec meo honore motus nec vestra authoritate fractus It seems he had been tried before them and Sentenced for Contumacy Further he was also suspected of Adultery which Cyprian would not judge by himself but referred it to their Meeting ibid. § 48. Having now examined our Author's first Principle I proceed to the second which he advanceth p. 50 c. It is that in every thing relating to the Government of the Church and her Discipline the Bishop had a Negative over all the other Church-Governours within his District he had the supreme Power of the Keyes He setteth about the proving of this Point with a high Degree of Confidence but let not him that putteth on his Armour boast as he that putteth it off He pretendeth to shew that Presbyters could not Baptize nor Administer the Lord's Supper nor Excommunicate nor Absolve nor Make nor Rescind Ecclesiastical Laws without the Bishop's Allowance For a foundation to our Answer to all his Discourse on this Head I shall re-mind the Reader of a Distinction of Presbyters above-mentioned They were in Cyprian's time of three sorts 1. The Ruling Elders who were no Preachers and who with the Bishop or Parish Minister and other Preaching Presbyters if there were any made up the Consistory by which the Affairs of the Congregation were managed These I confess could Administer no Sacrament neither without nor with the Bishop's Licence And for Acts of Ruling in the Church it is probable enough that they could do nothing without him who was Praeses in their Meetings except may be in some extraordinary Cases 2. There were in some Churches especially in great Cities some Presbyters who were Ordained to the Work of the Ministry but had no particular Charge and were as our Probationers or Students in Divinity Schools only with this Difference that ours are not Ordained these might not Baptize nor Administer the Eucharist yea nor Preach without the Allowance of the Bishop or Parish Minister And it is so also among us if some Ordained Ministers happen to live in a Parish whereof they are not Pastors as sometimes falleth out in great Cities it is disorderly for them to exercise their Ministery within another man's Charge without his Call or Allowance These Presbyters in Cyprian's time were in somethings like Evangelists whom the Bishops imployed when themselves could not overtake all their Work and if these be called the Bishop's Curats as our Author doth all Presbyters I shall not much reclaim These were as the Sons of the Prophets bred by the Bishop for the Ministery of this sort of Presbyters see P. Baynes Diocesan's Tryal p. 63. A third sort of Presbyters were the Ministers of the several Parishes among whom the Moderator of the Presbytery or other Church Judicatory was in a peculiar manner called the Bishop and they also often were called Bishops with respect to their own Parochial Charge Now if our Author mean that a Bishop in a City had such Power over the Presbyters or Ministers in the Villages or Places about that they might not Baptize c. without his Allowance I utterly deny it and maintain that every such Presbyter Minister or Parochial Bishop by what ever name ye design him had in Cyprian's time as full Power in his Parish as the great Bishop had in his tho' the one was more in esteem than the other § 49. I shall now consider his Proofs for what he affirmeth He beginneth with Baptism and pretendeth to prove that Presbyters could not Baptize without the Bishop's Leave His first Citation is Cyprian saith Bishops give the first Baptism to Believers Which we deny not if ye understand it of Parish Ministers But if he mean Bishops in Cities who were the Praesidents in Presbyteries we deny that Cyprian asserteth that His next Testimony is out of Cyprian Ep. 73. and Firmil and Fortunatus Bishop of Thurobaris But it is evident and he confesseth it that the Question by them treated is whether Presbyters who by Heresie or Schism had departed from the Communion of the Church might Baptize and if they they did whether that Baptism was valid or the Person was to be again Baptized and that Baptism esteemed null And in this we do so far agree with these Fathers as to think that all the Administrations of such Hereticks or Schismaticks are irregular and to be condemned and that none ought so to separate from the Church while she keepeth the Way of Truth and requireth no unlawful Terms of Communion of her Ministers or other Members But none of these Fathers did ever Assert that in the Church a sound Presbyter could not Baptize without the Bishop's Leave within the Limits of his own Charge That they mean no more than I say is evident for they plead that none can Baptize out of the Church nor Bind or Loose out of the Church and they say expresly that none can Baptize but they who are Founded in the Evangelical Law and I hope it will not be denyed that Ministers of Congregations are Founded on that Law as well as these of great Cities who were then called Bishops because of their Praecedency in Church Meetings That Bishops are named in these Reasonings as having the Power of Baptizing maketh nothing against us because all Parish Ministers were so called and none without their Allowance ought to intrude on their Charge in this or any other Administration and because the Authority for Baptizing and other Church Work was Communicated from the Presbytery by their Praesident the Bishop he indeed gave the Power but not by his own sole Authority but by that of the Presbytery The testimony of Tertullian cometh next who saith de Baptismo cap. 17. the High Priest who is the Bishop hath the Power of Baptizing and after him or in Subordination to him saith our Author Presbyters and Deacons A. 1. Tertullian doth not speak of Bishops as distinct from the
Lapsed Nothing of this I contradict except what I now said He hath run thus far without a Check and therefore ariveth at the Confidence to say p. 58. now consider what followeth and speak your Conscience and tell me if St. Cyprian was not more than either single Presbyter or Presbyterian Moderator I shall yield him yet a little more in what he saith of Cyprian's Meekness and Humility of his being alarmed with this Practice that this was an unparalelled Practice and that Cyprian did zealously and vigorously oppose it And for all this I shall speak my Conscience and shall give Reason for my Light that Cyprian was no Diocesan Bishop in our modern sense and that he neither had nor claimed sole Power nor a Negative in the Government of the Church and that bating what I yielded in stating the Question § 9 10. He was no more but a single Presbyter that is a Parish Minister or Presbyterian Moderator And indeed all that he here bringeth and looketh on as so strongly Argumentative is already Answered he having cited all or most of the places before which he here quoteth He bringeth three Epistles of Cyprian to prove his Assertion § 52. The first is that to the Confessors and Martyrs where I find nothing but a sharp Reproof of them for going without their Line and he blameth those Presbyters who had absolved the Lapsed so disorderly only what seemeth here to contain an Argument is that they should have Petitioned the Bishop for restoring of these Lapsed and not done it without him The Answer here is easie and often before given that the fault of these turbulent Presbyters was that they took this Act of Church Power on themselves without the Presbytery whereas the regular way had been to Petition the Bishop that he might call the Presbytery and that he with them might cognosce of that Affair I have laid down sufficient warrant for thus understanding his words from his declared purpose founded on Conscience of Duty to do nothing without the Concurrence of the Presbytery see § 12. And it is like I may after bring yet further Evidence that his Principles led him to this Conduct At present I take notice of that plain Passage Ep. 15. ad Clerum speaking of receiving the Lapsed quaeres saith he cum omnium nostrum Concilium Sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo And he desireth that that Affair might be put off donec pace nobis à Domino redditâ in unum convenire singulorum causas examinare possumus if Cyprian seem to my Adversary to speak in pure Prelatical Stile as he saith p. 6. He seemeth to me here to speak in the Stile of a Presbyterian Moderator Of the same Importance is the next Epistle cited which was to the Clergy of Carthage he doth not call them his Clergy as our Author wordeth it and if he had there had been no Argument in it he sharply reproveth not the Presbyters in common as our Author fouly representeth the matter for he writeth in a loving Stile to them but some of the Presbyters who had received some of the Lapsed most irregularly and that because they had not taken the due course for receiving these Lapsed which should have been done per impositionem manuum Episcopi Cleri not by the Bishops sole Authority He doth indeed here speak like a Bishop that is a faithful Pastor but not as a Bishop pretending to sole Jurisdiction or a Negative in the Government of the Church His third Epistle is to the People where we have the same Complaint of the Irregularity of the Schismatical Presbyters and complaineth that the honour of his Priesthood and of his Chair was not reserved to him This can never evince that Cyprian pretended to a Power to manage that Affair by himself I see nothing here inconsistent with the Power or the Stile of the Moderator of a Presbytery or Pastor of a Congregation save that the Moderator then being constant his part in the management of publick Affairs was more obvious and therefore more taken notice of He hath yet a further Citation wherein Cyprian telleth the Clergy that they ought to inform him of every thing that happens that so I may saith he Advisedly and Deliberatly give Orders concerning the Affairs of the Church let any one compare this Translation with Cyprian's own words which are faithfully enough set down by our Author in the Margin Is limare Consilium to give Order It is to polish and amend his Advice and make it more exact he then in his Retirement wills them to write often and distinctly to him of all Occurrences that he as making such a figure in their Society might give the more accurate Advice about what was to be done this is no Prelatical but a plain Presbyterian Stile § 53. On this occasion he is pleased p. 61 62. to take notice of and tragically aggravate a Passage in rational Defence of Non-conformity p. 179. where he thinketh Cyprian is reflected on as shewing too much Zeal in that Cause viz. of his Episcopal Authority being neglected and that possibly he stretched his Power a little too far as afterward many did he was a holy and meek man but such may be a little too high This he stretcheth his Invention to expose as contradictory to it self injurious to Cyprian and an uncharitable or ignorant Sugestion his more sedate Thoughts after all this Huffiness may inform him better That Author as he was not so straitned with his learned Adversaries Arguments as he imagineth they being the very same which now I have examined so he was far from speaking Contradictions nor did he seek to reconcile Pride and Patience Superciliousness and Self-denyal Huffiness and Humility carnal hight and Christian Holiness He was far from thinking on such ill Qualities with respect to that excellent person Further than that the best of men have sinful Infirmity mixed with their Graces and best Gifts He might know and I shall not charge him with Ignorance in this that Sin and Grace are consistent in gradu saltem remissiore And that tho' it were ridiculous to say that Moses was the meekest Man on Earth and yet he was Huffie and Proud and Passionate or that Job was most patient and yet he was impatient Notwithstanding it may be said with our Author's leave that neither of these holy Men was so perfect in the grace for which he is commended as to have nothing of the contrary evil Further I am of Opinion that what might be imputed to the excellent Cyprian was rather the Fault of the Age he lived in than his personal Fault there was then a Tendency toward Church-Domination which did shew it self much more afterward Tho' I still maintain it was not arrived at that Pitch that this Author imputeth to that time He spendeth a great many words to prove that Cyprian did not stretch his Power too far
Epistle from the Clergy of Rome while they wanted a Bishop to the Clergy of Carthage when their Bishop was in his retirement in which case saith he they had the best occasion of speaking their mind freely of the power of Presbyters and the usurpation of Bishops in this Epistle he fancieth that he findeth Arguments for Episcopal sole Power as first they say of themselves and these at Carthage that they were only seemingly the Governours of these respective Churches and only keep the Flock instead of the respective Pastors the Bishops I had occasion to consider this Passage before I blame his want of Wisdom that seing he is pleased to give us this Translation of this Passage he hath yet set down the Latine in the Margine out of which one may easily discover his Error without turning to the Epistle it self It is a strange Translation Videmur Praepositi that is we only seem to be Governours I am sure the Marginal Notes on this Epistle saith they were Pastores constituti And Pamelius from this Passage argueth for the Authority of the Church of Rome over other Churches and he that animadverteth on Pamelius saith Clerus Romanus Carthaginensem agnoscit quemadmodum alios aliarum Ecclesiarum pastores esse Christiani gregi praepositos wherefore videmur must rather signifie certainty than doubting in this place it appeareth not only to our selves but to all we are acknowledged for such And that they did not mean by vice Pastoris a vicarious Power delegated from the Bishop is manifest for the Bishop was dead and we find no Power he left them neither could he do it Yea it is evident that they lookt on a Power residing in themselves of which they were to give an account si negligentes inveniamur quoniam perditum non requisivimus c. What is said of the lapsed continuing in their Penitency that they might obtain Indulgence from them who can give it the Word being ab eo qui potest praestare It might be understood of Pardon from Christ on their sincere Repentance seing he alone can make Indulgence effectual but if that seem strained the Bishop with the Presbytery not by himself may fitly here be understood He doth again pag. 69. misrepresent the Question in these Words Let any man judge whether St. Cyprian or his presuming Presbyters had taken too much on them at Carthage But this mistake I noted before Another Argument he bringeth is from some Martyrs and Confessors in an Epistle to Cyprian commending him for his conduct in opposing and censuring these Presbyters I also commend him for it Ergo I think he had sole Power to manage that Affair the consequence is naught He haleth in another Argument into this Discourse these Martyrs and Confessors desire that Cyprian being so glorious a Bishop would pray for them which they would not have done had they thought him a proud aspiring Prelat that is a Limb of Antichrist as this Author would fain give him out to have been It is an injurious Calumny I never said nor thought so and no man can Wire-draw my words with any sense or reason to that meaning I esteem Cyprian's Grace Virtues and Learning as much as he doth and do judge that his Prayers while he was on Earth were worth asking and that he was a glorious Bishop but all this will not infer his sole Power nor his negative Cyprian ' s excommunicating these Presbyters and that fact being approven by others is not argumentative unless he can prove that this Cyprian did by himself without the Presbytery He next bringeth the Canons of the Apostles the insufficiency of which Authority I have above-shewed And Ignatius that nothing should be done without the Bishop nor in opposition to him And that the Bishop should be honoured All this is sufficiently Answered above When a Bishop that is any Minister of the Gospel acteth in his Sphere and keepeth to the Rule the Word of God to oppose him to depart from him not to honour him is highly sinful But I am sure Cyprian nor Ignatius never meant to enjoin absolute illimited obedience to a Bishop nor any man else As for doing nothing without the Bishop we grant that they who are under a Ministers charge Prebyters or others should act nothing in the Consistory without him but this also must suffer a limitation if he should prove so perverse as to oppose and hinder every thing that is good or what is necessary to be done I do not think that Ignatius would blame the Presbyters for acting without him otherwise there were no remedy but the Church must be ruined If it be said in that case they should complain To whom must this Complaint be made for a Bishop hath no Superior on Earth if we believe this Author § 56. The last of his three Principles which he advanceth p. 72. is that all the Church-Governours within his District Presbyters as well as others were in St. Cyprian ' s time subject to the Bishops Authority and obnoxious to his Discipline This Principle and all that he saith for establishing of it we might safely yield without any hazard to our Cause for we always maintained that a Bishop considered as a Paroch Minister hath Authority over the Ruling-Elders and the unfixed Preaching-Presbyters if any be within his Parish also considered as Moderator of the Presbytry he is still a Minister and hath Rule over all the Ministers and People and Elders within the District over which that Presbytery hath the oversight but our Question is whether he by himself hath the sole Authority or he as a Member of the Consistory or Presbytery hath a share in that Authority which resideth in that Body or Community This last we grant the former we deny His Proofs can never reach the conclusion that we deny the first of which is that Cyprian saith that our Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Governours where by the way Note that Cyprian owneth other Church-Governours beside Bishops and therefore they have not the sole Authority and the Apostles chose Deacons to be the Bishops and Churches Ministers Any body may see that this doth concern all Church-Rulers not sole Power in the Bishop Next he telleth us that Cyprian called Fabianus Superior with respect to the Roman-Clergy which is a mistake He calleth him simply Praepositus which as I have above-shewed was a Title given to Bishops Presbyters and if he had not called him their Praepositus that doth not import sole Power In an Epistle to Rogatianus Cyprian insinuateth that he was Ruler of the Church ergo he had sole Power it is a â—â—lish consequence this may be said of every Elder of the Church He is scarce of Arguments when he is forced to falsifie Cyprian's words qui in Ecclesia Praesidemus he translateth who have the chief Power in the Church beside that it is easie to distinguish between chief Power and sole Power to which all are subject Also Praesumus
he turneth govern the Church That the Bishop is said to be one and set over the Church may well agree either to a Parish-Minister or the Moderator of a Presbytery who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His next Essay is from the Bishop's calling the Clergy his Clergy for which he is at pains to cite many places If this were constantly done which was not what doth it signifie that manner of speaking is as common among Presbyterians as it was in Cyprian's time and it signifieth no more but Elders of the Church whereof Cyprian was Pastor as the Elders of any Parish are called the Elders of such a Minister and Elders usually call their Minister our Minister It is a frivolous Question by what Rule of Grammer Rhetorick Logick or Politick could he be so called if he had no Power or Jurisdiction over them A. There is no Rule in any of these Faculties against it tho' he have no sole Power If he have a share of the Power that the whole hath over every one and have the Conduct in managing that Power by being their Moderator § 57. He will let all this pass for a mere Praelusion not being scant of Arguments Wherefore we must now expect what is more pungent that is the three Principles he had before proved so fully viz. The Bishop being the principle of Vnity having supreme power being the same with the High-Priest under the Old Testament do prove this Point To this formidable Argument I oppone what hath been discoursed on these Heads I leave the Reader to judge whether he hath fully proved these or I have fully overturned them Next he argueth from Cyprian's saying he could by his Episcopal power Depose or Excommunicate a Deacon who had rebelled against him and praising another Bishop for so acting yea I shal allow him what he after faith that this power extended also to censuring of Elders Do not our Moderators usually so practise when there is cause but not by theit sole Power but with the Consistory or Presbytery We Presbyterians may tremble at his next Blow For he saith he will leave his Reader no imaginable scruple But these big words dwindle away into this feeble Argument that Cyprian might have censured Felicissimus and some with him who first opposed his Promotion and after he had taken them into favour apted disorderly in receiving some of the lapsed without the Praeses and the Presbytery of this case before it is wholly insignificant here unless he can prove that Cyprian might do this by himself without the Presbytery which himself disowneth as I shewed above All that followeth which is a Repetition of what he hath often alledged having little to say when he braggeth of Superabundance is already plainly answered He is run a little weak but he reinforceth his Arguments with Confidence and Repetitions § 58. Hitherto he hath set forth his Cyprianick Bishop in his Majesty Absolute and sole Power c. In his own particular Church p. 78. he giveth us account of him as he stood related to the Catholick Church and here he expecteth matter enough for another Demonstration which is a big Word in Disputation We shall here also by Divine Assistance try his Strength and tho' we will not brag of Demonstrations yet shall endeavour to bring what Light and Strength the subject doth afford His long Discourse about the Colledge of Bishops I have read with Attention and considered with what Application I am capable of but cannot find his Demonstrations in it yea cannot see wherein it is conducive to prove his point only some Hints he hath interspersed that seem to have somewhat of Argument which I shall consider after I have taken a general View of the whole He observeth that all Bishops were Collegues and made up one Colledge Next that this Colledge was the principle of Vnity to the Catholick Church Thirdly that the grand Concern of the Episcopal Colledge was to preserve and maintain the one Communion which together with one Faith made them capable to be the principle of Vnity to the Catholick Church and that this was their work he proveth first they thought themselves bound to maintain Peace 2. Every Bishop was a Member of this Colledge and therefore great care was taken about their promotion 3. He being promoted sent communicatory Letters to other Bishops giving account of his Promotion 4. If there was any Debate whether his Promotion was Canonical the rest of the Bishops enquired into it 5. If he turned Heretick or Schismatick he was turned out 6. While he kept the Faith and Vnity of the Church he was encouraged Consulted Corresponded with c. 7. While he continued a sound Member of the Colledge all Letters concerning the Peace and Vnity of the Church were directed to him Lastly p. 87. he observeth cum nota resist this Evidence saith he if ye can that every Heretical or Schismatical Bishop with all that retained to him was ipso facto out of the Church At last p. 88. He thinketh he hath another Demonstration against my Notion of a Bishop in Cyprian's time For how could a single Presbyter or Presbyterian Moderator have born such a part in relation to the Catholick Church and her Vnity and Communion § 59. I must Examine the Strength of this long Demonstration and what he addeth to fortifie it and then shall return to take notice of what he intermixeth in the several parts of it in which our Debate may be concerned For Answer then to this Argument as it standeth I deny the Assumption viz. That what he hath here asserted cannot agree to a single Presbyter or presbyterian Moderator His three Assertions do well agree to every Presbyter that is Pastor of a Congregation He is a Collegue to all Bishops that is such Pastors The meeting of such either by their Delegats or if they could all come together is as capable to be the principle of Unity to a Provincial or National Church yea to the Universal Church as if so many Diocesans should meet It is as much the concern of these Presbyters or Parish Bishops and I hope they do as much mind it to maintain one Faith and one Communion Doth he think that our Ministers do not think themselves bound to maintain Peace Or 2. That there is litle care taken about their promotion or giving them charge of the people and admitting them to a share of the Government 3. Tho' it be not our custom to send communicatory Letters of our settlement in a Charge yet every Presbytery notifieth to the neighbouring Presbyteries the Name of him who is to be fixed in a Charge that they may have opportunity to object and the Names of all who are ordained are recorded 4. If a Presbytery ordain any person unduely or if there be Competition the superior Judicatories enquire into it 5. We also turn out not only Heretical and Schismatical Ministers but them also who are scandalous in their Conversation or supinely
Government of the Church nor that they had Jurisdiction over Presbyters who were fixed in the Church to oversee any part of it Many Presbyters Deacons yea private Christians who were eminent for Ability to confound the Adversary for Zeal and Holiness or for their Station in the World were persecuted as well as their Bishops That this is neither strange nor concludent of Episcopal Power is evident not to fetch an Instance from far in the late Episcopal Persecution among our selves the Ministers were mainly Hunted Intercommuned Imprisoned forced to Hide or Flee and the more eminent or zealous they were the harder it went with them yea some who were freer than many others of what was thought Sedition Disorder or Rebellion yet were hardly used for the Hurt that it was thought they might do to that which was the great Diana of the Ascendent Party And yet all this will not prove that they had or pretended to or were thought to have Jurisdiction over their Brethren I do therefore deny the Consequence the Bishops some of them for I will not say it was the Lot of them all were mainly persecuted Ergo they and not the Presbyters had the Authority in Governing the Church If Decius had such a dread of a Bishop being setled in Rome that he would more patiently have endured a Prince to rivall it with him for the Empire I am sure he had not so much Cause as his Successors had from the Successors of that Bishop Of no more Force is his Argument drawn from Galienus directing his Edict to the Bishops when he stopt the Persecution For we deny not that they had an eminent Station in the Church and had a chief Hand in the Direction of her Affairs whether ye consider them as Parish-Pastors as they all were or Moderators in greater Church-meetings as some of them were I have as he willeth his Reader to do considered and weighed his Arguments without partiality and in the Ballance of Justice But am not yet convinced that the Schisme that is in the Church is chargeable on us but on his Party Let the Reader judge whether of us have best grounds for our Opinion § 64. He concludeth with making excuse from the bulk of his Book that he doth not as he first intended prove Episcopal Praeemenencie to be of divine Right as being Christ's Ordinance and handed down to us from the Apostles in the constant Practice of the Vniversal Church This is the constant Cant of that Party but I have met with none who was able to evince this tho' the learnedest among them and not a few of them have essayed it If this Author shall think fit to make another Effort as he declareth himself ready to do if commanded by him to whom he writs this long Epistle and if he bring any thing new and not fully answered already I doubt not but his Arguments will be examined to better purpose than what is or can be done by such a mean hand as mine is APPENDIX AFter the former Sheets were almost Printed I met with two Books at the same time which I had not before seen the one called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytry c. with a Preface of 167 Pages by a nameless Author the other an Inquiry into the new Opinions chiefly propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland with some Animadversions on the Defence of the Vindications of the Kirk by A. M. D. D. This latter Book seemeth to have more of Argument than some others which I have seen from some Scots Episcopalians if not from the same Hand I have much desired that our Debates might run in that more pure Channel and rejoice to see any hopes of it I am sorry that now I have no time from necessary urgent and daily work to consider this Book so as to Answer it if I shall not be Proselyted by it I intend to try it's strength as soon as I shall have leasure if the LORD give Life and Health and if it shall not be sooner Answered by some other Hand which I do much wish § 2. The former of these two Books is expresly levelled against an Act of the Parliament of this Nation and is a direct Refutation of it and therefore the Examination of it is out of my Road and is most fit for such as are conversant in the Affairs of State and know the Politick which moved the Parliament so to contrive their Act. I do judge that he who shall undertake it will find no hard task Beside the Presbyterian Ministers did never look on the Inclinations of the People which that Act mentioneth in it's narrative as the fundamental Charter of Presbytry however the Parliament might wisely consider it in their Consultation and Determining and mention it rather than what did more sway some of them We always did and do found the Government of the Church by Parity on Divine Institution and look on Prelacy as contrary to Christ's appointment § 3. What I now undertake is a transient view such as the Press hastening to an end of the former Discourse will allow of his Preface which I hope may be lookt on as a due Refutation of it nor can I imagine that any judicious and unbyassed man will judge that such a parcel of Stuff deserveth a laborious Examination he hath need of a hardened Nose who can insist long in an exact Anatomatical Scrutiny into such a rotten Carion The Author hath out-done his Brethren yea and himself too in Billingsgate-Rhetorick he seemeth to be eminently gifted that way to the silencing of who ever will oppose him as some learned acute men have quickly had their Mouths stopt when the Tongues of some of these good Women have been let loose against them I had rather own in my self all the dulness that he is pleased to impute to the man whom he designeth to expose than enter the Lists with him at that Weapon and I do freely confess I am not qualified for it and if I were I should think it unsutable to my Character however mean and inconsistent with a good Conscience Such impotency of Mind and such injurious Defamation is not well consistent with Christianity nor is sutable to that Learning that is required in them who write Polemick Divinity for Scolding is no Scholarship If his Adversary was weak he should have knockt him down with strong Arguments not bespattered him with dirty Revileings the one would have ruined his Cause the other but bedawb'd his Person and it may be easily wiped off If the Cause which my Adversary owneth need this Conduct it is weak and not worth contending for if not they who do so manage it are no credit to it § 4. I refer the Reader who would have a view of this Author's Qualities more truly than he Characterizeth other men to the Bishop of Sarum ' s Vindication where if he be not aimed at he is very plainly chastised in Effigie for G. B. G. R. seem to
meaneth I know not but it is not a wise comparison of one man to have so many Families to maintain on nothing and each to have his own I affirm that one man who suffered Torture Intercommunning was forc'd to lodge in Dens and Woods and in daily hazard of his Life who was sold for a Slave in the remote places of the Earth suffered more tho' his loss of Money did not amount to so great a Sum than all they did I find nothing in what followeth to disprove what I had said and therefore pass to another piece of Impudence which yet is a repetition of what he had said before that Presbyterians are no Rebels To prove this he very pertinently alledgeth a Contradiction between first Vindic. ad Q. 2. § 3. where it is said that Episcopacy raised a Tumult and § 5. they the Episcopal men raised no Tumults This last is ad Q. 3. § 5. Answ The former is spoken as plainly appeareth to them who will see of the War between the King and Parliament The other of such Tumults as our Author chargeth the Rable with and it is expresly said that they did what they could to raise a War Here then is that horrible Contradiction that he findeth or fancieth a War managed by potent Armies and for a long time is in one place called a Tumult and yet Scuffles among a confused Rout which are soon over are distinguished from such a War Here is neither Contradiction nor Impudence The Impudence that followeth is injuriously imputed to me it is vindicating the Presbyterians from being Rebels for what himself seemeth to applaud in other more modest persons he might find frequently said by me But if it be Impudence to deny Presbyterians to be Rebels what kind of quality must he be of who chargeth them with it while his own Party is guilty of Actions of the same nature and were as universally engaged in them What hath lately fallen out might teach him either to justifie what he so freely calleth Rebellion or to lay the blame of it on Protestants and not Presbyterians only and then if no share of it fall on himself let us know what Party he is of § 15. He next challengeth some Insinuations as if the Presbyterians in Scotland were the only Protestants which cannot be inferred from any Words he citeth Neither can it be inferred that I thought or said that the Gospel was not preached but by the Presterians One word he layeth weight on that if the Presbyterians had not used the Indulgence given to them and Papists these would have occasion to mislead People without any to oppose them None who had a mind to understand Words as they are plainly meant would so construct this Passage such universal Expressions most frequently suffer a Limitation also in that case they had done what in them was that none should oppose Popery as if a Batallion in an Army flee they act such a part as tendeth to hinder any opposition to be made to the Enemy Beside all this tho' there were some privat Episcopal Ministers appear'd faithful in this Case it is well known how litle most of the Bishops and the generality of the Clergy appeared and how they that did speak any thing that way were discouraged by some Bishops I wish he had better cleared to us how absurd it is to say that the true Protestants in the Nation were for the late Revolution than by telling us that being against it was no Popery most men think it was too much to favour it and was a defect in that Zeal that should have in such a Juncture been shewed against it The secret Instructions from Holland that he giveth as the Cause of Presbyterians complying with the Dispensing Power I never heard of them but from that Epistler whom he mentioneth and I could answer nothing to it but by denying it and now when he calleth for an Answer to it I say First Presbyterians did never comply with the Dispensing Power but groaned under it as a Grievance their using the Indulgence could not be so constructed as I have else-where shewed Secondly I solemnly declare that I know nothing to this day of these secret Instructions Thirdly What moved such Presbyterians as I was acquainted with to scruple using the Indulgence at first and to accept it at last was that some Conditions and Limitations that they could not submit to were left out in the last Edition of it The Villany that he chargeth the Presbyterians with in Addressing King James for his Indulgence while they were on Intrigues to supplant him must be charged on them who were so guilty I knew of no such Intrigues nor any such design then on foot tho' now I perceive that such Designs were then hatching neither can I name one person among all that accepted of the Indulgence who knew of such Designs § 16. He next bringeth instances of Impudent Shifts used by G. R. when he or his Cause is put to it The rabbled Ministers were not deprived of their Possessions I mean Stipends by an Act of Parliament as he alledgeth but thrust from their Places by the Rabble and the State judged that they could not relieve them without palpable Inconvenience and because of the notoriety of the Scandals of not a few of them which had been so outed as appeareth from the then Prince of Orange's Declaration on which followed the loss of their Benefices What the State did they can best give Reasons for I never defended what the Rabble did that way For what is said of Parliaments calling King James's Retirement from England his Abdicating the Government that is plain to be meant of the Parliament of England for tho' it was written by a Scots-man it was said of English Affairs of Retirement from England not from Scotland wherefore here is no Impudence unless on his own side tho' the Scots Parliament speak nothing of Abdication This and what followeth is picking a Quarrel without cause given The long Story he hath of the Viscount of Dundee's Plot and the Forces that came from the West to defend the Convention containeth such Matters of Fact as he contradicteth what is confidently affirmed by them who were on the Place and had occasion to know these things as well as he and are fully as credible persons as he is Let the Reader judge who deserveth most Credit I was Witness to none of these things but shall give my Vouchers if duely called to it if he can do the like let unbyassed Men judge of the whole History If I had said the whole Nation knoweth the whole of this Passage to be true as he affirmeth that the whole Nation knoweth it to be a Figment I might have been branded with Impudence on better ground than any thing that he hath brought to prove his Charge against me § 17. What was said against Dr. Strachan's Defence he spendeth many Words upon it on which I observe a few things First I